patch-2.4.2 linux/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl

• Lines: 19
• Date: Fri Feb 16 15:53:08 2001
• Orig file: v2.4.1/linux/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
• Orig date: Fri Dec 29 14:07:19 2000

diff -u --recursive --new-file v2.4.1/linux/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl linux/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
@@ -386,7 +386,7 @@
        <function>spin_lock()</function> and
        <function>spin_unlock()</function> calls.  
        <function>spin_lock_bh()</function> is
-       unnecessary here, as you are already in a a tasklet, and
+       unnecessary here, as you are already in a tasklet, and
        none will be run on the same CPU.
      </para>
     </sect2>
@@ -720,7 +720,8 @@
       halves without a lock.  Depending on their exact timing, they
       would either see the new element in the list with a valid 
       <structfield>next</structfield> pointer, or it would not be in the 
-      list yet.
+      list yet.  A lock is still required against other CPUs inserting
+      or deleting from the list, of course.
     </para>
 
     <para>